Reading is fundamental:
I said “Many people opposed to the war…” (i.e. not all)
“At this point those who were supporting the war have been proven correct in their assessments.”
Look, I think a case can be made that war is always wrong unless it is meets criteria X (UN approval, etc.); and if this one didn’t, it’s wrong. I don’t share that approach, but it has some merit.
But at the same time is that I have a hard time understanding how anyone but an blind ideologue can watch the images in Baghdad and not conclude that at least from where we sit now, a good thing has happened.
You think three weeks and that’s it? The repercusions of this will still be getting played out 20 years from now. Nothing has been proven yet. I’m tired of the short-term view of some around here with TV-episode attention spans who think reality has things done and dusted in time for the credits to roll once the good guy gets the gal. (Or in this case Bush gets Baghdad.)
Did anyone think that Saddam wouldn’t get beaten? Did anyone suggest that it wasn’t a good thing to get rid of him? What practically every anti-war post on the SDMB said was that the US & UK unilaterally deciding to go in, on the flimsiest of excuses that still haven’t been proven, and start a war would cause massive resentment in the Arab world, creating more unrest, more terrorism, more distrust.
But at the first sign of TV pictures of a tiny, tiny fraction of the Iraqi people prancing about the streets some seem to think that it’s all over. Fire up the theme tune. This war filmed on location in Iraq. Please make your way to the exits and have a safe drive home.
Meanwhile those of us in the real world realize that life goes on with all the consequences of past actions. History does not end with TV sized bites of statues getting knocked over. This is nowhere near finished with yet.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by furt *
Reading is fundamental:
I said “Many people opposed to the war…” (i.e. not all)
I read what you wrote, asshole. The POINT is that anti-war arguments do not hinge on whether there were “gas attacks on civilians, very heavy casualties, and populace rising up against coalition”. There have in fact been casualties, and Iraqi citizen have risen up against U.S and British forces. Just because it didn’t meet YOUR worst-case scenario has nothing to do with anything, because that’s NOT THE POINT. Let me re-iterate Futile Gesture’s point, which I think encapsulates the consensus opinion pretty well:
So you have NOT been “proven correct”, because you are presenting a straw man position of what it is you’re trying to prove.
If anyone took the anti-war position that “The war will be justified as long as Iraq doesn’t use chemical weapons, and as long as thousands of U.S. soldiers don’t die”, then that was an extreme fringe opinion. The consensus anti-war view is that even if Saddam had been killed the first day of the war, and everything had gone incredibly smoothly, it STILL would have been the wrong course of action.
An analogy: Furt’s mom tells him not to climb the neighbor’s fence, because he’s not supposed to go on other people’s property, and he might get hurt. In fact, every mom on the block has told Furt he shouldn’t climb the fence. Furt climbs the fence anyway, then says: “See Mom, you were wrong; I didn’t get hurt.” Is he right to say so?
Jesus Christ almighty, who pissed in your cheerios?
And I’m the one who needs to chill?
(Actually, the past few months I’ve been sick and having problems with my meds and stuff-not anything I feel like discussing right now-so that may be why I’ve been online more.)
You don’t seem to understand how journalism works, FG. When you say "at the first sign of TV pictures of a tiny, tiny fraction of the Iraqi people prancing about the streets " you imply that that the vast majority of Iraqis are angry and hostile about Saddam’s fall–if that were so, any reporter worth his salt, and interested in a Pulitzer, would be interviewing them and documenting the false impression being selectively created by his media-brethren. You don’t win Pulitzers telling the same old shit every other reporter is telling, you win Pulitzers by reporting first some major clear truths, whenever you’re lucky enough to be the first to find them. Where are all these stories?
I do nothing of the sort. I’m saying that the majority of the Middle East, regardless of their thoughts on Saddam, detest the idea of an Arab country being bombed to hell and then lorded over by the United States.
Nothing the US does from this point onward is going to make them forget that the US thumbed their nose at international and Arab opinion and proceeded to do exactly what they wanted on Arab soil, destroying the place in a sledge hammer solution to a problem they were very much involved in creating in the first place
Make no mistake, once the initial euphoria is over, the Iraqi people will be as just as suspicious and resentful of US interference as the rest of the Middle East. If you think the French are ‘ungrateful’, you ain’t seen nothing yet.
And the stories that warn exactly of this are out there, it’s just that no-one wants to hear them. They’re shouted down with simple-minded arguments of “Anti-Americanism”, “Pro-Saddam”, “liberalism”, “French” propaganda. No one is to be allowed to spoil Bush’s big success by reminding people of the bigger picture.
No-one wants to hear how Iraq history in the last 60 years has been nothing but getting jerked around by Western powers. No-one wants to hear how Saddam was actively supported by the US. No-one wants to imagine that Middle East resentment of the US might actually, conceivably, have some valid basis. Everybody would rather believe that a couple of days in Baghdad and suddenly everything smells of roses. It’s the start of a process that will free the world of all dictators! Well… eventually, promise. We’re just starting with those particularly irritating oil-owning ones.
To those who never had a doubt we’d win, did you expect the military phase to go this well? I like how suddenly the rebuilding phase is the hard part. I agree it will be hard; it is a delicate situation. But fuck you for trivializing the amazing accomplishments that we already have.
I respect the anti-war position, but could we please have a little more, “Thank goodness military and civilian casualites are at a minimum. Even if I am against the war, since it is happening, I am happy it has unfolded like it has.” And a little less, “This was the easy part. Watch Bush fuck up the rebuilding.”
And yes, I agree that Iraqis cheering in the street has little bearing on the war’s initial legitimacy, but it does make anyone who said Baghdad would be a bloodbath and the Iraqi people would fight us to the last man look pretty silly.
Oh and what I learned in school today…Helping create a problem absolves you from any responsibility in fixing it.
Oh and the oil arguments are getting old. You can bring them up when we start filling out tankers with Iraqi oil for free. Until then, a cartel controls the oil market and the price of oil. The extra Iraqi supply will provide no special benefit to the US.
I retract my oil statement on the basis that it may benefit “Big Oil” somewhat. I do still think saying that we are going to war to lower oil production prices is pretty specious and an especially vicious accusation to make.
I don’t know if I should feel like this applies to me: I certainly don’t feel I trivialised anything when it comes to this war. But to answer your question: no, I did not expect the military phase to go this well. Having said that, it’s not over. There is still plenty of resistance, and moreover, Saddam is still unapprehended. FWIW, I have always thought that the rebuilding would be the hard part.
Well, if it were up to me, Bush wouldn’t be in charge of the rebuilding, or anywhere near the biggest position of power over this. Sadly, it looks like he might be. Not that I’m against the US, anti-American, or what have you, but I genuinely feel that the reconstruction of Iraq should be done by a coalition that as international as possible. And for God’s sake, let’s incorporate some Arab nations for a change.
FWIW, I am very glad that casualties have been restricted to what they seem to be, but previous untruths spread by the Bush administration as well as the obviously understated official US estimate on the Gulf War 1.0 body count have made me a tad cynical as well. I’ll reserve my judgement for when we have independant verification of the body count.
Please point out where anyone in this thread has trivialized any of our military’s accomplishments. I call bullshit on that statement, it’s up to you to prove it wrong. I can speak for myself, though, and I can tell you I have trivialized nothing.
Like Coldfire, I have also always believed that a post-war rebuilding of Iraq would be the hardest part. There’s no “suddenly” about any part of this; even before the war I held the belief that the depleted Iraqi military would be scant resistance to the US/UK forces. I had some small doubts about the use of illegal weapons, on the part of Iraq, but I didn’t believe they would com into play. And so, the military victory would be comparatively – let me repeat, comparatively – easy.
On the other hand, we have months or years ahead of helping to establish a fair government in Iraq (hopefully in as hands-off a way as possible), convincing the majority of the Arab world (which currently isn’t all that happy with us) that we’re not all that bad, and restoring international ties in the UN and other venues.
And if you think that a three-week war is more difficult than that, then you’re simply fooling yourself. Fuck you for thinking that just because we kicked a dictator’s ass militarily, that all is well and good in the vacuum that dictatorship has left behind.
Avalonian, I wasn’t trying to attribute those beliefs to the anti-war crowd in general. I have no problems with people being anti-war. I can see how having a slightly different value system (neither better nor worse) can change your outlook on the war and how it was prosecuted. My post wasn’t a response to anyone in particular, but there are people who have acted like the fact that the military portion has been successful thus far means that it has been easy thus far. Forgive me for only being angry at the (existant) strawman portion of the anti-war crowd. If you don’t fall into the “trivializing the amazing accomplishments that we already have” crowd, I don’t know why you are upset.
With that as the first sentence, I assumed that the rest of your post was addressed to anyone who knew the US military would win. As I stated in my OP, I am one of those people, so it sounded like you were addressing me, and probably others who have said similar things in this thread. However, I do not think I’ve trivialized anything as of yet.
I maintain that the military part was the easy part, in comparison to what is coming. But that doesn’t mean that I think the military part was “easy” on its own merit. Far from it.
However, I can accept that your first post was poorly-phrased, and I accept your apology with that in mind. If you didn’t mean to address me or others with your comments, then I shouldn’t have responded as I did. My apologies, as well.
You are right. That was poorly phrased on my part.
On another note, I am not sure I’d say one part, military vs. rebuilding, will be easier than the other. They seem to have an entirely different nature. I think certainly the rebuilding part will last longer. The military part was arguably more dangerous. I would imagine the current administration is more adept at making war than at diplomatic endeavors. I think we can agree that both phases are difficult and require different talents to pursue successfully.
